From owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG  Mon May  2 13:29:52 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-performance@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9821116A4CE
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>;
	Mon,  2 May 2005 13:29:52 +0000 (GMT)
Received: from multiplay.co.uk (www1.multiplay.co.uk [212.42.16.7])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 016C143D1F
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>;
	Mon,  2 May 2005 13:29:52 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk)
Received: from vader ([212.135.219.179])
	by multiplay.co.uk (multiplay.co.uk [212.42.16.7])
	(MDaemon.PRO.v8.0.1.R)
	with ESMTP id md50001375526.msg
	for <freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>; Mon, 02 May 2005 14:25:16 +0100
Message-ID: <002701c54f1a$dde7b0e0$b3db87d4@multiplay.co.uk>
From: "Steven Hartland" <killing@multiplay.co.uk>
To: "Eric Anderson" <anderson@centtech.com>,
	"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
References: <17479.1115040178@critter.freebsd.dk>
Date: Mon, 2 May 2005 14:28:42 +0100
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=original
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2527
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2527
X-Spam-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Mon, 02 May 2005 14:25:16 +0100
	(not processed: message from valid local sender)
X-MDRemoteIP: 212.135.219.179
X-Return-Path: killing@multiplay.co.uk
X-MDaemon-Deliver-To: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-MDAV-Processed: multiplay.co.uk, Mon, 02 May 2005 14:25:17 +0100
cc: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
Subject: Re: Very low disk performance on 5.x
X-BeenThere: freebsd-performance@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Performance/tuning <freebsd-performance.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-performance>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-performance@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-performance>,
	<mailto:freebsd-performance-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 02 May 2005 13:29:52 -0000

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
>>Wouldn't this be a problem for writes then too?
> 
> I presume you would only compare read to write performance on a RAID5
> device which has battery backed cache.
> 
> Without a battery backed cache (or pretending to have one) RAID5
> write performance is abysmall no matter which alignment you use.

This not what's been reported we are seeing writes that are 2x the
speed of reads. Give the additional overhead that writes encure
on RAID5 this should never be the case. The results I go in my tests
where:
RAID5 ( 5 disk )
Read: ~50MB/s
Write: ~140MB/s

Single Disk ( same controller ):
Read: ~50MB/s
Write: ~50MB/s

This just doesn't sit right with me something is seriously wrong.

    Steve


================================================
This e.mail is private and confidential between Multiplay (UK) Ltd. and the person or entity to whom it is addressed. In the event of misdirection, the recipient is prohibited from using, copying, printing or otherwise disseminating it or any information contained in it. 

In the event of misdirection, illegible or incomplete transmission please telephone (023) 8024 3137
or return the E.mail to postmaster@multiplay.co.uk.